Main menu

You are here

July 20: German Social Democrats commemorate 1944 traitor-assassins as founders of the current EU

Published by carolyn on Fri, 2018-07-20 23:12

In the courtyard of the Bendlerblock, July 20th. Main plotters' portraits visible among the floral arrangements, left to right, Friedrich Olbricht, Ludwig Beck, Claus von Stauffenberg, Werner von Haeften.

By Carolyn Yeager

THE DATE OF JULY 20TH IS USUALLY PASSED FAIRLY QUIETLY IN GERMANY. But this year, although not a milestone year, it's being played up more strongly, possibly because of the important Bavarian state election coming up in October amid fear of strong support for the nationalistic AfD party.

Deutsche Welle writes that it is “usually framed as a celebration of the re-establishment of justice in Germany following the aberration of Nazism, but this year there was a clear note of defiance against new far-right populism in Europe and around the world.”

The commemoration took place in the courtyard of the Bendlerblock building in Berlin, which houses the Federal Ministry of Defense both in the 1940's and now. It is sponsored not by the government but by something called the July 20, 1944 Remembrance Foundation and the Bundeswehr. Foundation chairman Robert von Steinau-Steinrück spoke about the “populists” in jealous terms:

“They claim for themselves the sole right to represent and recognize the true will of the people. Their actions and their language are totalitarian, but the resistance was anti-totalitarian. For that reason I want to make clear once again – also in the names of the families of the relatives – that the foundation of July 20, 1944 distances itself in the strongest possible terms when right-wing populists try, as now happens every July 20, to use women and men of the resistance for their own aims. That is nothing less than abuse."

Both Foreign Minister Heiko Maas and Berlin Mayor Michael Müller also used their speeches to express outrage that 'far-right' populists in Germany staged their own commemorations for the July 20, 1944 plot – though without naming the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party directly.

Doesn't German history belong to all the German people, not to a select few political parties who want to interpret historical events for their own use and benefit? All the current leaders in the AfD are real, genuine ethnic Germans, which cannot be said for the leftist party leaders, who pride themselves in introducing foreigners and foreign interests into German politics.

Maas aggressively invoked those he saw as holding a pan-European vision at that time, saying of the plotters: “For [them] it was clear; Peace in Europe could only be achieved by overcoming borders. [Their] hopes rested on a European federation – with its own army, a customs union, a common currency, and a common supreme court." This is the dangerous dream of Heiko Maas and of all the leftists in Europe.

Category

Comments

The great irony is that if those conservative army-officers had managed to take over the German government, it would have gained nothing for Germany. They would not have been able to negotiate a peace with Britain and the USA and to continue fighting the USSR.

They suffered from the delusion of believing the enemy propaganda that said that Hitler was the problem. That madman Hitler! He's the problem! Hitler was not the problem.

The purpose of that kind of propaganda, which was also used against Iraq in 1991-2003, was to cause internal dissension, and with those particular officers it succeeded.

If they had gained power, being a bunch of Prussian militarists like the ones demonized during the First World War, they very quickly would have become the problem.

What you said in your first paragraph is what Hitler said about it in a more elaborate description, as reported by Hermann Giesler in our translation The Artist Within the Warlord. Did you read it yet? I don't think there is a better or more comprehensive accounting of the July 20th plot and it's aftermath.

It's so true that if these plotters had succeeded in taking over the government, they would have been treated just like Hitler was ... to their shock and disbelief. It's all such a big lie and masquerade taking place.

It's an interesting book, but I found that a lot of the information in it I already had from other sources like Heinrich Haertle.
With all the discussion of art and architecture, I suppose that the original German edition was full of photographs. I was thinking that a coffeetable edition could be worthwhile, with pictures of all the things discussed. But in the Internet Age, maybe not.

Not to take anything away from Heinrich Haertle's good work, but it does not compare to that of Giesler's extensive personal contact and professional association with the Fuehrer. It's a different animal. Haertle was an ideologue, as are you, who was active in the NSDAP, worked under Alfred Rosenberg, and probably never met Adolf Hitler one on one.

Since you say you only read a third of the book, you are not in a position to say you already knew a lot of the information in it from other sources. Plus, that's like saying if two books contain some related things, I only need to read one of them.

I have the original German edition of Ein Anderer Hitler and it indeed has a lot of photos. But they are mostly of architecture built or designed by Giesler, lots of models of his city projects; the photos taken in his office with Hitler present are not of the best quality though, because of unprofessional lighting. The best photos in EAH are used in The Artist Within the Warlord.

Sorry to intrude in this cordial conversation, but Giesler is fundamental to Hitler's rehabilitation and he provides credence to the Table Talk authenticity in many ways:

-basically confirms that Bormann was jotting down Hitler's conversations

-establishes that AH wanted to build an observatory in Linz

-was, to my knowledge, the only one in AH's inner circle who was familiar with his personal interest in Hans-Ulrich Rudel

-recounts AH speaking of Germany as a magnetic power field, which is reminiscient of what AH said about his party and himself

-attests to AH adhering to a belief in the necessity of struggle (as did Otto Wagener)

-and to top it all off, like with most memoirs from people who knew Hitler, he confirms AH's concept of mission. This belief, this conviction, this religion, will be the key to Hitler's resurrection. All we need is one person, ideally a German, to assimilate every single aspect of Hitler's ideas and catchphrases. I will never content myself with a Trump, Putin, etc. It needs to be exactly Hitler.

Let me just say that I do not entertain any thought that Trump is another Hitler or a new Hitler, or a substitute for Hitler. I see some positive similarities is all.

But neither is Hitler still the same Hitler of 1945! This is a thought I've had since considering "contacting" him through spiritual means. My first attempt was so successful that it scared me off from trying it again until I feel more "ready" and have the cleared space. But just from understanding how Life, and our lives, work -- while there can be the Hitler of that period who still exists and maybe can be talked to, there is also the ongoing Hitler as he is in the NOW. That's the best I can explain myself at the moment. Though I suppose the larger Hitler of NOW can also talk about the Hitler that he was then.

What you seem to want is to know everything about Hitler as he was then, and to be sure of it. To reconstruct him, as it were. But since the world is not the same as it was then, nor are any of us, then what exactly would we be gaining other than to feel good? That is my reaction following my short contact with the wonderful AH.

I will certainly keep you informed if I have anything further to say about this. I'm serious about it. And I don't want to hear from or talk to other people who might have the same idea -- I only trust myself.

>Let me just say that I do not entertain any thought that Trump is another Hitler or a new Hitler, or a substitute for Hitler. I see some positive similarities is all.

I'm well aware of this. I'll be keeping my reservations about Trump to myself.

>But neither is Hitler still the same Hitler of 1945! This is a thought I've had since considering "contacting" him through spiritual means. My first attempt was so successful that it scared me off from trying it again until I feel more "ready" and have the cleared space.

How can you be sure that wasn't an imposter? Cultivated emotional sentiment make it possible for everyone's idealized version of Jesus, Buddha, etc. to exist. But then they are certainly not the original, as the original does not permanently reside in some distant immaterial world, but is still in this physical world, merely unseen or reincarnated.

>What you seem to want is to know everything about Hitler as he was then, and to be sure of it. To reconstruct him, as it were. But since the world is not the same as it was then, nor are any of us, then what exactly would we be gaining other than to feel good? That is my reaction following my short contact with the wonderful AH.

More or less, yes, exactly Hitler. But with some subtle tweaks and additions of my own. I subscribe to the belief that one must necessarily pay homage to predecessors who waged similar struggles against the ruling powers.
The Bavarian Illuminati is well-suited for this, regardless of it's international character, as it's founder has sufficiently demonstrated his contact with the higher ideals.
What I ultimately desire is a third social order to appear in Germany, one which will supplant or repurpose the Masonic lodges, Jesuit and liberal universities, and Christian churches for a Nordic revolution. Like Otto Wagener, I contradict Hitler on the notion that a struggle is always necessary for development. It's plausible for a full-fledged subversion of Germany's democratic breeding ground. It's no coincidence that secret societies sprung up all over Europe in the 1700s. The two mistakes these societies made, as pointed out by AH and Rosenberg respectively, was attempting to assassinate democratically elected leaders and including Jewish members without a severe vetting.

>I will certainly keep you informed if I have anything further to say about this. I'm serious about it. And I don't want to hear from or talkto other people who might have the same idea -- I only trust myself.

Do tell whenever you want, you have my interest piqued, although I'm wary of any claims to have contacted the real AH. There are plenty of people undergoing NDEs who have described him "burning in hell", which is absurd.

I read the book, and liked it, but found it hard to review. I think it is because it is a history and presentation of facts. So, there is nothing to criticize or challenge or agree with, and nothing to compare it to, unless one has more expertise. It's certainly worth reading, and a fine introduction to a younger audience.

It is shocking that the so-called neutrals, were really serving the enemies of Europe.

I did read Nick Kollerstrom's book and found the facts critical to realizing that the British wanted German genocide, not mere war. That book was short and repetitive, but the main point is that in a war you seek peace and you work with diplomats and engage armies. In a genocide, you intentionally bomb and starve civilians, make them homeless, and then demonize their existence until they "abolish" themselves. That's the function of the hoax. The hoax is part of German genocide.

I wished the Kollerstrom book went into deeper detail of the Lord Grey's cabal and what could have generated such a evil and outrageous geo-political policy that not only gambled with destroying European civilization, but the European people across the world. Absolutely horrifying.

Hitler's National Socialism meant appreciating French art and keeping Africa out of France. French nationalism meant bringing Africans into the Ruhr to pollute the race. In the long run, German National Socialism was mature enough to find what is best for everyone in Europe, and was a proto-Europeanism, while other nationalisms meant German annihilation and the death of Europe.

'It is shocking that the so-called neutrals, were really serving the enemies of Europe.'

There is something to write about, yes? These particular revelations, so well described by Giesler, have come as a surprise to many who thought they were sufficiently knowledgeable about the entire period. Of course there is always more to learn.

'I did read Nick Kollerstrom's book...'

An excellent little book, but of course it's just the transcript of talks he gave in London. I discussed this book with him on my very last Heretics' Hour podcast. Nick is really a gifted communicator. As to exploring the reasoning underlying the British policy of keeping a European 'balance of power' at all costs, it seems to rest on the British elites fiercly competitive spirit and a desire to 'rule the world,' starting with Europe. They were reckless and also did not value the lives of the common people. They are rightly condemned by history for this, therefore remain committed to blaming Germany/Adolf Hitler for it.

We should all be careful in thinking that Europeans are so wonderful and can do no wrong.

Although neutrality can confer the advantage of monitoring both sides, in nearly all cases, choosing to be neutral is tantamount to siding with the enemy. When the struggle is of gigantic proportions, there can be no neutrality. It's just a lazy justification for indifference. Pretty sure AH belittled the concept somewhere in Zweites Buch, something about neutrals having no share in the spoils. Goethe's philosophy was concerned with being active, as was AH's emphasis on work.

Giesler's book and our translation reveal that Switzerland functioned as a conduit for Soviet espionage. How 'neutral' is that? At the same time, it acted as the "Protecting Power" (diplomatic representative) for the Reich with the Allied nations. So while Swiss neutrality can be respected, and even useful in ways, it cannot be admired, as you say.

Another example: the only reason Jews made sure to openly announce they were working for the Allies against the Axis was that they wanted to share in the "spoils" at the end of WWI. The 'holocaust' was dreamed up during WWII as a way to give themselves human losses in order to deserve the territorial gains and other influence (spoils) they wanted from the conflict. The Poles did the same.